Re: [OT?] BSD licensing
Re: [OT?] BSD licensing
- Subject: Re: [OT?] BSD licensing
- From: John Clark <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:20:59 -0700
Am Mittwoch den, 24. April 2002, um 09:40, schrieb Adam Atlas:
It seems that Darwin is one of the few (the only?) BSD-derived
operating system that does not use the BSD License. I downloaded the
4.4BSD-Lite sources (Darwin is based on 4.4BSD-Lite, right?) and it
comes with a copy of the BSD License. And the BSD License says that any
product derived from it, in source or binary form, must include that
license. How did Apple get around that?
BSD license is included in all files derived from BSD in Darwin.
However, there are other files
in Darwin which Apple has produced and do not require any BSD license.
I though 4.4BSD-Lite was in the public domain, but I guess I'm wrong.
BSD is not 'in the public domain'. The BSD license says, briefly, that
the
use is unrestricted, provided a notice the product is derived in part
from
BSD is provided. The unrestricted part is that one need not supply
sources,
either original BSD source, or derived works to any third party.
The GPL, also not 'in the Public Domain', requires that sources be
passed on to third parties. However, this need not be 'without
compensation',
ie one can charge some fee for providing the source, both original
or derived sources.
The Apple license requires, among other things, that if you produce
something derived from Darwin sources, Apple can require that the
sources be fed back into Darwin. (Whether Apple wants it is a different
story...)
Perhaps others know, but I can't think of any court case involving
copyright infringement, where the Free Software Foundation has sued
an entity for improper handling of the GPL'd material.
_______________________________________________
darwin-kernel mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/darwin-kernel
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.